7 Answers

  1. The materialist dialectic is a paradigm of the Marxist philosophical theory of “historical materialism”. However, the main drawback (“miscalculation”) of this philosophical paradigm is its historicism, i.e. the historical limitation of its scientific base to the era of the 19th and 20th centuries, which is connected with the problems of solving the main question of philosophy. The fact is that Marxist materialist dialectics, like Hegelian idealist dialectics, does not begin with the solution of the basic question of philosophy, but after it – in the very solution of it, it simply does not exist. This problem and its modern solution are described in the collection of articles by Yu. Zuyev (2013) and a number of his subsequent works



  2. Paradigms are weak-willed.
    What mistakes can they make?
    Again, what is it? There are many materialistic dialectics.
    Marxism is a particular thing, and there are many other wonderful discoveries besides it.
    But let's say that Karl's old dialectic has one real drawback, the German way of throwing a lot of words, instead of a locanic presentation.
    As a result, many people pulled the owl on the globe in such a way that Karl – M. himself caught a wild surprise from them.

  3. There were no miscalculations. Just another religious and sectarian nonsense of a man who never worked a day in his life and lived dependent on his boyfriend

  4. Materialistic dialectics, as a method of scientific knowledge of the world, does not contain miscalculations and mistakes.�

    If we are referring specifically to the Marxist understanding of it, which is an offshoot of the development of society, then even here a miscalculation is not so much theoretical as methodological — a miscalculation in the ways in which it is applied. A lot of things were simply not taken into account.

    In particular, they did not take into account the human factor, the eternal craving of individuals for personal enrichment and obtaining power at any cost.

  5. the main problem with materialistic dialectics as a paradigm is that it is material. Based on this, a person is only a material with which you can conduct your experiments, which you can kill, rot, destroy, use, and so on, which was produced in countries committed to Marxism-China, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Il Sung, Broz Tito – these are the most famous communists around the world, who”embodied in reality” the ideas of Marx. They made original attempts to build “real socialism,” which ended just as ignominiously as the attempts to organize the International. “They “experimentally proved” that a communist society cannot arise either after the destruction of private property or after the “destruction” of many ” millions of people's lives.

  6. Dialectical materialism is not a paradigm at all, it is an unsuccessful attempt to build your own, Marxist epistemology. This attempt was limited to the use of 3 dubious ideas of Hegel, such as: the unity and struggle of opposites, the negation of negation and the transition of quantity to quality. So that this would not look like plagiarism at all, Marx claimed that he had creatively reworked Hegel's ideas and put them on the ground of materialism in contrast to him, which is why they now, they say, have acquired the opposite and true meaning.

    The very concept and term diamat is not found in either Marx or Engels (this was later coined by the supporters of Marxism). None of them anywhere in their works systematically sets out their views on this issue. They are scattered with rare beads in a number of their works and are most fully represented – on several dozen pages, in contrast to Marx's political economy, which required 3 volumes of Capital-in Engels 'works” Anti-Duhring”, “Dialectics of Nature”, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy”.

    Marx (and after him Engels) sees his philosophy of the three laws in three guises: it is both a worldview, a science, and a method of scientific knowledge. Combining several disparate concepts in one is a sure sign of sloppiness in thought and a desire to embrace the vast. This is the same as, for example, simultaneously passing off physics as a science as a method of cognition. Do you know such a scientific method – physics? Hardly. But Marx does just that. Or, for example, take liberalism as a worldview. But it is well known that there is no such scientific method as liberalism. But Marx has one.

    Yes, the scientific method is formulated in its entirety only in the twentieth century-observation-hypothesis-experiment-verification-conclusions-theory building – but Marx and his dialectical laws do not even come close to this chain. Instead of a method, it imposes laws that must also be a worldview. But no scientist in the world is guided by these laws and this worldview.

    Marx's laws of dialectics act in a strange, one-sided way. For example, in Capital (Volume 1, Section 7, chapter 24), he writes that capitalist private property supposedly denies individual property (why he took this and why he does not prove it in any way is unclear – but this is not the point now) – this is the “first negation”. And then ” the negation of capitalist production is carried out by it itself, with the necessity of a natural-historical process. This is the negation of negation.” Even if we do not now go into the lack of proof of these statements and their contradiction to reality, but focus only on the logic of Marx's reasoning, we should expect the next round of denial and so on ad infinitum.

    But for some reason Marx breaks off the operation of his (Hegelian) laws of dialectics at the very place where he needs it, thereby turning this law into a kind of proof of some process that it does not prove in any way at all.

    Engels, in Anti-Duhring, illustrates the law of unity and the struggle of opposites with even stranger examples – from mathematics, which is all the fruit of human thought, abstraction from reality, and has nothing to do with materialism.

    The main point is that all these dialectical laws-even if we agree to recognize them as some kind of universal laws, as Marx and Engels want-do not provide a tool for knowledge, do not generate knowledge, but can only describe certain processes in retrospect. In his Dialectic of Nature, Engels retrospectively adapts all the scientific discoveries made up to that time to these laws.

    Under the guise of a diamat, Marxism tries to push into science the idea of determinism, which science should adhere to. In other words, the task of science is to discover what corresponds to dialectics

    Why is this necessary? For the sake of the main thing: to determine the history and consciousness of a person, to deprive consciousness of autonomy and to consolidate the influence of external, supposedly objective, circumstances and things.

    But scientists do not agree with either Marx or Engels or their followers in this attitude to science and knowledge of the world.

    Among these scientists is one of the founders of quantum mechanics, Nobel Prize winner M. Born (among his students are Heisenberg, Oppenheimer, Teller, Fermi, Goeppert-Mayer, Gamow, Tamm, Delbrueck, and J. Wigner). He does not agree with the fundamental propositions of dialectical materialism and, in particular, the postulate of the unity and struggle of opposites. Here is what he wrote, in particular, in his short article “Dialectical Materialism and Modern Physics” in 1955:

    “It is absolutely … obvious that the doctrine of Marx and Engels is not based on historical facts. It is a metaphysical assumption that seems to have arisen from the fact that it wants to pass off wishful thinking. They both wanted to justify sociological ideas by claiming that they were based on a scientific method and therefore reliable because of this.

    The paradigm of the sociological situation is simple: there is a piece of bread that Jonathan and Boris claim. There are three possibilities: (1) this piece is taken by Jonathan (statement) or (2) it is taken by Boris (opposite statement); (3) after a fight, they divide the piece in half and each takes his own half (conflict resolution).

    The materialist doctrine considers the unity and struggle of opposites to be the condition of progress. I don't see that this is supported by history: it could have been that Boris got the whole piece, and in other cases, Jonathan got it.

    Nor do I see how it is consistent with the communist doctrine that in the struggle between capitalism (statement) and communism (opposite statement), the latter will win and destroy the former, since this is a strange interpretation of the resolution of the conflict of opposites.

    But all this does not concern us, since here we are only concerned with the extent to which science corresponds to the Hegel – Marx doctrine. By the time it was proclaimed, there were no examples. The only example of resolving the conflict of opposites appeared almost a hundred years after the statements of Marx and Engels, in quantum mechanics. Thus, their doctrine can be considered an outstanding example of prediction and foresight. But then it is no longer a science, but an example of a super-metaphysical divine action, almost a miracle.

    At that time, quantum mechanics had to recognize the fact that under certain experimental conditions, radiation phenomena behaved differently-sometimes as if they were particles, then as if they were waves. These two seemingly contradictory theories were reconciled in a truly astounding solution. To do this, it was necessary to revise the concept of physical reality and abandon the traditional concept of determinism of physical laws and replace them with a statistical interpretation of these laws. A critical review of the empirical basis of fundamental ideas about particles and waves led Bohr to fully clarify the situation and formulate the principle of correlation. To claim that all these completely new ideas… are contained in the doctrine of dialectical materialism is to belittle the efforts of several generations of physicists and, in particular, the genius of Bohr. Of course, there is also an element of metaphysics in modern physics, since there is no logical path from experiment to theory other than what was explained above. However, metaphysical assumptions (about space and time, cause and possibility, substance and field) are a consistent development of previous assumptions, and not the result of random conjectures contained in Hegelian and Marxist teachings.”

    And then: “Engels' formulation… that 'objects and phenomena of nature contain internal contradictions' is a relapse into pre-scientific thinking and the use of terminology such as 'fear of emptiness' and other medieval 'explanations'. As if objects and phenomena of nature have a perception similar to that of humans, when they become the subject of opposite statements and influences! This is pure metaphysics at its worst…”


  7. I don't want to delve into a bunch of abstruse things, in my opinion, two thoughts – “The mind is a product of labor” and “Labor determines the meaning of the existence of a reasonable person.”..

Leave a Reply